FiTech FCC overheat issues

[Dandesjar]

I’m running the FiTech system with the FCC mounted under the hood so I can run my dual tanks. The system runs great 90% of the time and I love it ... when it’s working. The problem I’m having (and yes, I’ve read about these issues) is that on hot days, when cruising slowly in town in traffic, the FCC shuts down due to overheating/vapour lock.

Has anyone found a fix for this?

It’s left me stranded in traffic now 3 times (for over an hour each time) and I’m done with experimenting with it. Even if I can get it working properly I’m sure this has dramatically shortened the life of the pump. I see fitech has now discontinued the original FCC and now sells a redesigned system. I’ve had it less than a year... Has anyone had any luck getting Fitech to do an exchange or, better yet, give a refund? At this point I’m willing to forget about my dual tank setup and convert to a Sherman EFI tank.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Think about putting a cooler on the return line.

As it runs it circulates fuel, a fairly small amount. A little is used and a little is put back in. But so much just goes around and around. Each loop around adds a little more heat from going through the fuel pump, picking up heat from the engine. If you cool the return line you dump some heat. Maybe enough. What I don't like is the cooler will need COLD air. Not engine compartment air. Which means putting it in front.

 

[DirtDonk]

No reason not to keep the dual tanks even without an external reservoir/module like the FCC. It just takes more work, but there are at least two perfectly acceptable methods. Three maybe, if you include the new generation of FCC.
Nothing wrong with buying a Sherman either though!;D But I'm a little biased on that score.

But it's got to be better than the old FCC.
Have you called FiTech yet? I'm pretty sure that they have either replaced, or refunded several of them for members here in the last year or so. Best to call them quickly before they decide that the statute of limitations has run out.
And that's the answer to your main question, about anyone having a fix. Seems that the "fix" for EB's at least, is to get rid of it and try something else.

Although, to be sure, there are many out there that do not have the issue. Not so many on Early Broncos, as we well know, but plenty of them in other vehicles with zero problems and even some in EB's that have not had the issue.
I wouldn't mind comparing notes here with all the members that have used them with different results though. See if there's any consistency among them, as far as how and where they are mounted, or how hot or cool their particular Broncos run. Or whatever other variables we can think of.

Be more for information purposes more than anything else. But might help those that are keeping the original FCC to get theirs running optimally.
I have not seen the re-designed setup in action yet myself. Seems that in addition to the trick finned aluminum reservoir, they simply added an external return line back to the stock tank like they were trying to avoid with the original FCC in the first place.

Still not a bad thing though. I'm a big fan of return lines to keep the fuel cool and the pressure even. And the external reservoir still makes it an easier choice than trying to retrofit an internal pump module into some tanks.
So there's pros and cons to it all still.

Good luck with your work with them. Keep us posted.

Paul

 

[Dandesjar]

I’d be interested in hearing your advice for running a dual tank setup with a single in-tank pump... if that’s what you’re getting at. I may wind up going this route if I can’t make any progress with FiTech. The new design doesn’t really appeal to me as it requires drilling into the tank and adding a return fitting which I was trying to avoid with the FCC in the first place. I’m just not sure how well drilling & adding a return fitting will work on a 50 year old poly tank.

I plan to call them tomorrow. I’ve spoken to them previously about some other FCC issues: non-functional pressure gauges, vent issues, etc.

For what it’s worth: my FCC is mounted on the Driver’s side core support. - as far away from the engine & exposed to as much airflow as possible. Engine is a 347 Stroker and runs at about 190 degrees on average. Each time it died the engine was above 200 degrees and I was driving in town at low speed on a hot day. Each time it took at least an hour for the FCC to start moving fuel and get the bronco running again.

 

[DirtDonk]

Thanks for the info. It's a good start!
But for the dual tanks, unfortunately no, I was just assuming multiple pumps in any scenario.

The only version that has a single pump is an external pump mounted just in front of an electric tank selector switch, mounted as far back as reasonable, feeding from the valve (and hence both tanks with one pump).
The ones I was thinking of earlier were either using the aux tank as a "transfer tank" or it having it's own external EFI pump switched on by the same switch as the selector valve. Either way obviously needs a second pump.
And the second way would need an electric valve in place of the original mechanical valve. Which is normal anyway, since it's harder and harder to find the six-port mechanicals. And it's easier to plumb in the electric valve and keep it as far back as possible.
The transfer scenario is just a cheapy electric to pump the gas from the aux to the lower, or almost empty main tank. No tank selector switch needed and therefor only the one return line too.

As for internal pumps, there have not been any (that I'm aware of) reports on installs of internal pumps either in the stock plastic tank, or any of the aftermarket metal ones.
Maybe they just don't want to lose any capacity, but neither Sunset Metals or Aero will add an in-tank module to their side tanks.
Seems like it could be done with a little loss of capacity, but the big hurdle I'm guessing is keeping the exposed end of any pump module from being pushed up against the floor pan. Just not much room under a Bronco body (or hood!) for mounting extra stuff.
I bet it could be done, but you might lose ground clearance or capacity. Neither of which is great.
And probably why the transfer pump method is the most popular. Lots of members here running their side tanks as-is, with a simple low pressure pump.

Paul

 

[Attac]

Just a FYI. When I first started looking at FI I called and got one of the senior techs at Fitech. I asked about the FCC. He said absolutely not in a bronco. He said that the heat would be an issue and would cause problems sometime. He recommended an in tank efi tank system. He was honest and upfront about it.
Chuck

 

[Dandesjar]

I just got off the phone with FiTech and I’m not super impressed. The tech told me that if it’s installed correctly it should not be overheating. Well... a quick google search will bring up page after page of similar stories to mine.

He told me that all I can do is ship the unit back to them (at my expense) and they can inspect it for defects. If no defects are found they will ship it back to me and I will either have to live with it or buy myself an updated unit. This unit has less than 250 miles on it and has left me stranded in traffic 3 times. At this point the Bronco is completely unreliable and I will not be driving it until it is sorted out. I consider it a hazard to drive it in this condition due to the fact that it will quit without warning in the middle of traffic at any given time. Never mind the fact that there is a pressurized can of gas under my hood that I know is overheating to the point of boiling the fuel.

Sorry for the rant, just totally unimpressed with FiTech at the moment. Buyer Beware.

 

[Broncobowsher]

If I remember correctly the commander has a supply to the EFI and a return from the EFI back. Put a small transmission cooler on that return line. This is simple thermal management. You are increasing the temperature in a system (fuel pump running adds some, heat soak off the intake into the throttle body and into the fuel is another). The only cooling of this increasing heat at the moment is to get rid of the fuel by burning it rapidly. Under the hood it too hot for conduction and radiation to remove the heat.

You want a steady flow of unpressurized fuel, that is where the return line comes into play. Lots of flow of the hottest fuel in the system. Cool that before it gets back to the pump.

 

[Rustytruck]

I found this article interesting. I don't understand why anyone would mount it under the hood though. Once the fuel is in the high pressure line you just need a longer line to mount it out of the heat. Stopping dead in traffic is my biggest fear with complicated engine systems. Its not like it starts running bad and you head for the curb. Problem solving parts are not supposed to make problems worse.

http://www.etotheipiplusone.net/?p=4420

 

[Dandesjar]

There is no return line on the original FCC, only a fuel vent. That’s the problem with the design - the fuel in the FCC doesn’t circulate fast enough when driving at low speeds and it overheats inside the sump. I don’t think an in-line cooler would serve much purpose since it’s the fuel in the FCC itself that is overheating.

This design has been discontinued and the new version has added a proper AN fitting for a return line to the tank which should allow the fuel to circulate and stay somewhat cooler. It looks like some people have modified their FCC & run their vent line as a return line to the tank. I have no interest in doing this since it says specifically in the Installation Instructions not to and, honestly, I just don’t think it should be necessary to have to make modifications to a brand new piece of equipment. This unit is still “under warranty” (which appears to mean nothing to FiTech) so splitting it open to modify it shouldn’t be my responsibility. FiTech should step up to the plate and admit that it is a poor design.

 

[Dandesjar]

I don't understand why anyone would mount it under the hood though.

http://www.etotheipiplusone.net/?p=4420

The issue is that it needs to be mounted vertically and there just isn’t any good alternative mounting locations in an early bronco. It’s too big to mount on the frame rail, wheel well, or any other location underneath the body. And I have no desire to move any fuel component into the cab.

 

[Rustytruck]

How about moving it under the front fender well in front of the tire? Then you would have to build a shield for it, if it fit there. I hope the best for you and the manufacturer should help in upgrading it. If you bought it through summit or Amazon you might have other options.

 

[WILDHORSES]

"Has anyone found a fix for this?" Yes.

If you want the unit to work in the Bronco set it up with a return line. Sorry if this has been addressed I may have missed something. If my logic is screwed up I'm sure you guys will let me know.

Run the return from the FiTech throttle body back to the main tank. I did read that you did not want to install a fitting in the tank. How about putting a fitting in the filler neck, existing sending unit or using one of the tank vents for the return?

This is a good idea because no matter what you end up doing you will ultimately need the return line, even if you swap tanks.

Jim

 

[Broncobowsher]

So the original FCC has a built in regulator and dead heads into the throttle body? I thought they had a regulator on the throttle body and a return line back to the FCC. That is where I would be putting a cooler if it were possible.

Finding info on the original FCC is difficult. There are different versions and google search doesn't filter them correctly.

Looks like they require a vent line run back to the fuel tank. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the FCC? I thought the idea was the carb fuel system was run without alteration and no return line was needed?

Can someone post a plumbing diagram of this original FCC so I can tell what I am really trying to figure out? If internally mounted, can the regulator be removed from the FCC to allow a cooling line to be added to the flow?

All the common high pressure fuel systems generally run the same thing. Even new cars with a single feed still have a regulator and a return line, they are just built into the gas tank. The regulators have gone from vacuum compensating to fixed pressure and the loop has shortened to completely inside the fuel tank. Is the FCC just a miniature version of this?

 

[DirtDonk]

So the original FCC has a built in regulator and dead heads into the throttle body? I thought they had a regulator on the throttle body and a return line back to the FCC.

Nope. If I have my info correct, the regulator in the TB still does that duty, but the return port from the TB is capped off.
The FCC simply returns excess gas right back into itself via a bypass valve/loop after the pump, but before exiting the FCC reservoir. Just like you were referring to with modern in-tank returnless systems.
Therefor all hot fuel that is not needed at the TBI is simply dumped right into the FCC reservoir.

Perhaps there is an extra port on the FCC that can be used as a real return line back to the vehicle's tank, but I haven't seen one in a long time so can't confirm that. Maybe Dandesjar can shoot a quick pic for us?

Looks like they require a vent line run back to the fuel tank. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the FCC? I thought the idea was the carb fuel system was run without alteration and no return line was needed?

Never heard of a vent line being needed. As you say, that would be a return line.
But if there is an extra fitting maybe it's for certain applications, OR for when you decide to run a return line anyway. If not though, the return line port from the TBI itself would be the most logical place to run a return line after that.

Seems a full return line would be the way to go either way. You still get the benefit of no tank mods, while letting the stock mechanical pump do the first job of pulling fuel from the tank, get the quick-n-easy way of adding a high-pressure pump, but get away from the heat issue by running a return.

 

[Dandesjar]

The original FCC has 3 ports: one Low Pressure input AN fitting that receives fuel from the mechanical pump, one High Pressure output AN fitting that sends fuel to the TB, and one (5/16?) barbed fitting for a vent line. The vent line is a rubber hose that runs back to the tank and gets tee’d into the vent line on the filler neck. It is specifically for venting fuel vapors - not for running raw fuel back to the tank. The TB does have a return port but it isn’t used with the FCC. The mechanical pump fills the FCC reservoir and then deadheads while the TB receives fuel on demand from the reservoir via the high pressure EFI pump inside the can. The issue is the canister holds about 3/4 of a gallon of fuel that just sits inside the reservoir and heats up. When you’re leaning into the throttle the fuel moves through the system fast enough not to vapor lock. But when you’re just putting around town on a hot day the fuel inside the tank isn’t cycling through fast enough and it reaches its boiling point.

The other flaw in the system is that the FCC uses a standard carburetor needle & float. I have had nothing but problems with the float right out of the box. It seems to need constant tweaking. If it’s adjusted too low then the FCC won’t get enough fuel to keep the pump cool, if it’s adjusted too high then raw fuel will spill out of the vent line in a steady stream.

The new version of the FCC is a complete redesign. It does away with the needle & float so it no longer needs to be mounted vertically. It also does away with the barbed vent line and adds a proper AN fitting for a return line back to the fuel tank. The idea is that it will now keep fuel constantly flowing though the FCC rather than deadheading inside the reservoir and (hopefully) allow it to stay cooler. It also comes with a crushnut type of -6 AN fitting so that you can drill a hole in your tank and add a return fitting. I think this might be an issue on a poly tank so I would probably try to tee into the filler neck somehow.

The new version looks like a slightly modified version of FiTech’s G-Surge tank which I believe they have been selling for some time. The original version is an abomination to modern engineering. If I were doing it all over again I would just go with a Sherman Tank EFI setup and be done with it but I really liked the simplicity of the FCC idea and the fact that I could keep it looking stock with both tanks running off of the OEM manual selector valve and a single line to the mechanical pump. It was also a considerably cheaper setup - especially since I had already just installed a brand new high performance mechanical fuel pump & fuel lines before I made the decision to go with TBI.

Just an update on dealing with FiTech... I finally heard back from their warranty department and they have agreed to exchange my unit for the updated FCC 2. I’m still likely going to have to install it in the same location but I’m hoping that adding the return line will keep it cool enough to prevent the issues I’m currently having. I may look at adding an inline cooler as well to help it out. I’ll post an update in a couple of weeks once I get it all sorted out.

 

[Dandesjar]

So my new FiTech FCC 2.0 has been installed for a little while now and I figured I’d give a bit of a quick update...

Unfortunately, it won’t be a very complete update for now because - since my Bronco was down for half the summer waiting for the new FCC to ship - the temperature has cooled off significantly and it’s tough to make an accurate comparison. Here’s what I can tell you so far...

While I’ve been VERY impressed with the FiTech products so far (aside front the FCC 1.0), their customer/tech support leaves something to be desired. Anyway... after many phone calls they finally agreed to replace my FCC under warranty with the new FCC unit. Unfortunately, they were back ordered from the supplier so I was down for almost 2 months waiting for the new unit to arrive.

Anyway, it might be a bit premature to comment too much but, here goes...

Right out of the box the unit just felt better. It’s quite a bit smaller with a baffled aluminum body... just a smaller, simpler design. I was able to install the unit in the same location (inside driver’s side inner fender well) but the mounting brackets didn’t didn’t line up. I ended up having to patch the old holes in the fender and drilling new ones��.
It was a bit of a significant pain in the ass and extra expense to run a return line to the rear tank. The lack of return plumbing was basically the whole reason I opted to run the FCC rather than swap out for rear tank for a 23 gallon EFI unit in the first place. I tried to argue this point with my original vendor here in Canada but they weren’t very sympathetic to my cause. Anyway... I was so tired of dicking around with fuel lines by this point that I just ended up having a braided steel return line made up and ran it back to the rear main tank. The FCC 2.0 comes with a -6AN crush-nut fitting mod which allows you to drill a hole into the tank and then attach the fitting but, with a 50 year old plastic tank, I didn’t want to go this route. So, in the end I made up a tee fitting and plumbed it into the fuel hose between the tank and the vent line in the filler neck. I was a little worried about fuel doors permeating through the fuel hose but, so far, haven’t had any issues.

I have the Bronco tucked away for winter already (It’s getting damn cold in Canada) so I can’t really comment too much on the operation of the system. I only made about 4 trips to town after I installed the new system but I will say this... no overheating issues whatsoever and the engine seemed to run significantly better. The old system seemed to surge at idle, which I always assumed was because of the low vacuum on my 347 with a performance Comp Cam. Now, I’m not so sure. Anyway... it could be the cooler temps but it has a significantly smoother idle so far with the new FCC. It also seems to have smoother acceleration and more top end. So... not sure if it’s just the cooler temps or the fact that the FCC is maybe just simply communicating better with the TB unit.

Hindsight being 20/20... if I was going to do it all over I would have just spent the money on a single 23 gallon Main tank with an internal EFI pump. The FCC appealed to me because I wanted to keep the Bronco as close to stock-looking as I could (with dual tanks and a manual fuel selector valve) while making it as modern-driving as I could (with TB injection). In the end I would have been miles ahead with a bigger Main tank and an electric EFI pump.

Anyway... I’ll try to remember to give a better update in about 6 months when the temps up here start hitting the 100 degree mark again but, if you are considering the Fuel Control Center... the updated version, so far, seems FAR superior to the old unit.

 

[DirtDonk]

Glad you like the quality of this one better at least. Too bad you had to go through so much hassle to get a better copy.
Definitely looking forward to hearing your next update after having lived with it for awhile.

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Paul